Social Facilitation Experiment
ABSTRACT
The study us experimenters re-conducted was based on Norman Triplett’s study of social facilitation and how social presence or encouragement improves an individual’s speed and consistency in their performance.
The experiment was replicated in using several trials for accurate results and was split into two stages: a mental challenge and a physical challenge. The two male and two female participants ranged from ages 15 to 17 years old.
For the mental challenge, each participant was pulled aside one at a time to match 22 flashcards as fast as possible by themselves. The results recorded were the times each individual person took to match all 22 cards. Afterwards, each participant was given the same instruction to match the set of …show more content…
22 flashcards as fast as possible, but this time with another peer present in the room as they offered words of encouragement. For the physical challenge, each participant was given five minutes to make as many shots as they can with a basketball into the basketball hoop by themselves. The results recorded were the number of shots each participant had made into the basketball hoop. Afterwards, each participant was given the same instruction to shoot a basketball into the hoop as many times as possible, but this time with a peer encouraging the player.
Our results showed that the average participant’s mental performance increased with the presence of social support by 1:07 as well as an increase in the average participant’s physical performance by 4 basketball shots. These results relate to Triplett’s findings in revealing that social presence affects a person’s performance. With our replication experiment and Triplett’s study, both results suggest that peer presence and encouragement increases performance.
Independent Variable – Peer presence
Dependant Variable – Participants’ mental and physical performance
Controlled Variable – Participants’ characteristics (age and gender)
INTRODUCTION
There are not one but many different factors that can manipulate a person’s performance. Nineteenth century society considered these different factors and debated on which had the most impact on a human’s performance. Among this society was Norman Triplett, who utilized his bicycling hobby to further explore the psychology behind which factors took a toll on a person’s performance. He found that cyclists had improved race times when practicing with others, unveiling the theory that peer presence acts as a stimulus arousing natural competition and releasing nervous energy. With these findings, Triplett established one of the first facilitation studies in psychology. Knowing that presence of another person enhances performance, Triplett conducted an experiment in 1898 involving 40 children – instructing them on reeling a fishing rod as fast as they possibly could by themselves then with a partner. The experiment’s results of a faster rate in a social environment maintained that the presence of another person increases performance of another. Triplett explained that humans didn’t have to work together to enhance performances and that it was based on the pure presence of a person. Various theorists like Robert Zajonc and Michaels contributed to the social facilitation theory. Contrary to Triplett’s experiment, there were some cases where individuals would perform poorly with the presence of another student. Michaels categorized pool players from above average to below average. Pool players that were categorized into above average increased in their self performance. Those who were categorized as below average dropped in performance (Michael, 1982). However, Zanjonc (1965) produced an explanation to this mysterious setback. He was discriminatory between both dominant and nondominant responses. Dominant responses are at the top of a person’s response hierarchy which in turn makes it easier to learn and perform in other behaviors. Nondominant responses are behaviors that are not as likely to be performed. These discoveries that Zanjonc produced explained previous studies on social facilitation, as it suggested that activities performed in studies where performance level increased were more instinctual and better learned than activities where performance level decreased, further supporting Zanjonc’s findings.
Aim: To observe and explain the effects of another person on an individual’s performance.
METHOD
A.
Design
The replicated experiment is designed for each participant to be in experimental and control groups. The experimental condition was in an outdoor location. This design was chosen because it was necessary to have each person experience solitary conditions to better emphasize and create a bigger impact of the effect another person’s presence had on performance. Repeated trials and measures ensure a decrease in experimental error due to participants’ personal characteristics. One of the controlled characteristics was age (15-17),
In regarding ethical terms, a briefing was given to the participants as well as a consent form. The experiment was only conducted after the consent forms were signed. We realized the great importance of not physically or mentally harming the participants, leading us to conduct the experiment with caution to ensure no damage like this occurred.
B. Participants
The target group of people consisted of 4 participants ranging from ages 15-17, two male and two female. The 4 participants were in both control and experimental conditions.
To obtain the results, we tested the performance of the participants mentally and physically solitarily at first, and then again with a partner.
C. …show more content…
Materials
In this experiment, flashcards with a picture on one side, and blank on the other were used in the mental experiment as well as basketballs used in the physical experiment. The flashcards were used by the participants as they matched the corresponding pictures two at a time as fast as they could. The basketballs were used by the participants as they shot the basketball into the hoop from the same spot as many times as they could within a given period of 5 minutes. A stopwatch was used in this experiment to both measure the amount of time it took to match the cards as well as the 5 minutes given to each participant to shoot hoops. A consent form was also used to provide us with the permission to conduct the experiment on each participant.
D.
Procedure
First, consent forms were released to the 4 chosen participants requiring both parent and teacher signatures. Those who chose not to participate were not forced to have their consent forms signed. A week after the release of the consent forms, the signed forms were collected and we started our experiment.
Each individual person was taken away from the group to be experimented on. Each participant was told that they were to flip over and match the 22 flashcards two at a time as fast as they could while we timed them. When they finished, we stopped the stopwatch and recorded their time.
After all participants finished the mental experimentation, they were again individually taken away from the group to be physically experimented on. They were told that they were given 5 minutes to shoot the basketball as many times as they could. After 5 minutes, the participants were told to stop as we counted the number of shots made.
After both experimentations, we repeated the mental challenge once again but this time with a partner. They were still given 22 flashcards to match two at a time as fast as they could while we recorded them. Once all the cards were matched, we stopped the timer and recorded their
times.
We then again repeated the mental challenge but this time with a partner. They were still given 5 minutes each to shoot the basketball as many times as they could as their partner passed them the basketball back to them and encouraged them on every time they missed.
The two trials of mental experimentation and physical experimentation were repeated on all four participants. Once completed, they participants were then debriefed.
RESULTS
Below are two tables of data collected from the experiment. The times in the first table refer to the times it took for the person to match all 22 cards. The numbers in the second table refer to the number of basketball shots the person completed within the five minute range.
Mental Challenge – Times of Matched Cards (Figure 1)
Participant Performance Time (Alone) Performance Time (with Support)
Kristin 0:36 0:42
Austin 1:30 1:03
Anivey 1:17 1:00
Nick 0:47 0:42
Physical Challenges – Number of Basketball Shots Made (Figure 2)
Participant Number of Shots (Alone) Number of Shots (with Support)
Kristin 4 7
Austin 10 10
Anivey 2 11
Nick 2 6
The data recorded in both tables (Figures 1 and 2) provide support for Triplett’s results and experiment. For the mental experiment, the average performance time alone was 2:03. The average performance time with a partner was 1:36, showing an improvement in performance and a faster time by 1:07. For the physical experiment, the average number of shots made alone was 4.5 shots. The average number of shots made with a partner was 8.5, showing an increase of performance by 4 shots. With these results, the data from the replicated experiment suggests that individual performance can be further enhanced with social encouragement and peer presence.
DISCUSSION
The study us experimenters re-conducted was based on Norman Triplett’s study of social facilitation and how social presence or encouragement improves an individual’s speed and consistency in their performance.
The experiment was replicated in using several trials for accurate results and was split into two stages: a mental challenge and a physical challenge. The two male and two female participants ranged from ages 15 to 17 years old.
For the mental challenge, each participant was pulled aside one at a time to match 22 flashcards as fast as possible by themselves. The results recorded were the times each individual person took to match all 22 cards. Afterwards, each participant was given the same instruction to match the set of …show more content…
22 flashcards as fast as possible, but this time with another peer present in the room as they offered words of encouragement. For the physical challenge, each participant was given five minutes to make as many shots as they can with a basketball into the basketball hoop by themselves. The results recorded were the number of shots each participant had made into the basketball hoop. Afterwards, each participant was given the same instruction to shoot a basketball into the hoop as many times as possible, but this time with a peer encouraging the player.
Our results showed that the average participant’s mental performance increased with the presence of social support by 1:07 as well as an increase in the average participant’s physical performance by 4 basketball shots. These results relate to Triplett’s findings in revealing that social presence affects a person’s performance. With our replication experiment and Triplett’s study, both results suggest that peer presence and encouragement increases performance.
Independent Variable – Peer presence
Dependant Variable – Participants’ mental and physical performance
Controlled Variable – Participants’ characteristics (age and gender)
INTRODUCTION
There are not one but many different factors that can manipulate a person’s performance. Nineteenth century society considered these different factors and debated on which had the most impact on a human’s performance. Among this society was Norman Triplett, who utilized his bicycling hobby to further explore the psychology behind which factors took a toll on a person’s performance. He found that cyclists had improved race times when practicing with others, unveiling the theory that peer presence acts as a stimulus arousing natural competition and releasing nervous energy. With these findings, Triplett established one of the first facilitation studies in psychology. Knowing that presence of another person enhances performance, Triplett conducted an experiment in 1898 involving 40 children – instructing them on reeling a fishing rod as fast as they possibly could by themselves then with a partner. The experiment’s results of a faster rate in a social environment maintained that the presence of another person increases performance of another. Triplett explained that humans didn’t have to work together to enhance performances and that it was based on the pure presence of a person. Various theorists like Robert Zajonc and Michaels contributed to the social facilitation theory. Contrary to Triplett’s experiment, there were some cases where individuals would perform poorly with the presence of another student. Michaels categorized pool players from above average to below average. Pool players that were categorized into above average increased in their self performance. Those who were categorized as below average dropped in performance (Michael, 1982). However, Zanjonc (1965) produced an explanation to this mysterious setback. He was discriminatory between both dominant and nondominant responses. Dominant responses are at the top of a person’s response hierarchy which in turn makes it easier to learn and perform in other behaviors. Nondominant responses are behaviors that are not as likely to be performed. These discoveries that Zanjonc produced explained previous studies on social facilitation, as it suggested that activities performed in studies where performance level increased were more instinctual and better learned than activities where performance level decreased, further supporting Zanjonc’s findings.
Aim: To observe and explain the effects of another person on an individual’s performance.
METHOD
A.
Design
The replicated experiment is designed for each participant to be in experimental and control groups. The experimental condition was in an outdoor location. This design was chosen because it was necessary to have each person experience solitary conditions to better emphasize and create a bigger impact of the effect another person’s presence had on performance. Repeated trials and measures ensure a decrease in experimental error due to participants’ personal characteristics. One of the controlled characteristics was age (15-17),
In regarding ethical terms, a briefing was given to the participants as well as a consent form. The experiment was only conducted after the consent forms were signed. We realized the great importance of not physically or mentally harming the participants, leading us to conduct the experiment with caution to ensure no damage like this occurred.
B. Participants
The target group of people consisted of 4 participants ranging from ages 15-17, two male and two female. The 4 participants were in both control and experimental conditions.
To obtain the results, we tested the performance of the participants mentally and physically solitarily at first, and then again with a partner.
C. …show more content…
Materials
In this experiment, flashcards with a picture on one side, and blank on the other were used in the mental experiment as well as basketballs used in the physical experiment. The flashcards were used by the participants as they matched the corresponding pictures two at a time as fast as they could. The basketballs were used by the participants as they shot the basketball into the hoop from the same spot as many times as they could within a given period of 5 minutes. A stopwatch was used in this experiment to both measure the amount of time it took to match the cards as well as the 5 minutes given to each participant to shoot hoops. A consent form was also used to provide us with the permission to conduct the experiment on each participant.
D.
Procedure
First, consent forms were released to the 4 chosen participants requiring both parent and teacher signatures. Those who chose not to participate were not forced to have their consent forms signed. A week after the release of the consent forms, the signed forms were collected and we started our experiment.
Each individual person was taken away from the group to be experimented on. Each participant was told that they were to flip over and match the 22 flashcards two at a time as fast as they could while we timed them. When they finished, we stopped the stopwatch and recorded their time.
After all participants finished the mental experimentation, they were again individually taken away from the group to be physically experimented on. They were told that they were given 5 minutes to shoot the basketball as many times as they could. After 5 minutes, the participants were told to stop as we counted the number of shots made.
After both experimentations, we repeated the mental challenge once again but this time with a partner. They were still given 22 flashcards to match two at a time as fast as they could while we recorded them. Once all the cards were matched, we stopped the timer and recorded their
times.
We then again repeated the mental challenge but this time with a partner. They were still given 5 minutes each to shoot the basketball as many times as they could as their partner passed them the basketball back to them and encouraged them on every time they missed.
The two trials of mental experimentation and physical experimentation were repeated on all four participants. Once completed, they participants were then debriefed.
RESULTS
Below are two tables of data collected from the experiment. The times in the first table refer to the times it took for the person to match all 22 cards. The numbers in the second table refer to the number of basketball shots the person completed within the five minute range.
Mental Challenge – Times of Matched Cards (Figure 1)
Participant Performance Time (Alone) Performance Time (with Support)
Kristin 0:36 0:42
Austin 1:30 1:03
Anivey 1:17 1:00
Nick 0:47 0:42
Physical Challenges – Number of Basketball Shots Made (Figure 2)
Participant Number of Shots (Alone) Number of Shots (with Support)
Kristin 4 7
Austin 10 10
Anivey 2 11
Nick 2 6
The data recorded in both tables (Figures 1 and 2) provide support for Triplett’s results and experiment. For the mental experiment, the average performance time alone was 2:03. The average performance time with a partner was 1:36, showing an improvement in performance and a faster time by 1:07. For the physical experiment, the average number of shots made alone was 4.5 shots. The average number of shots made with a partner was 8.5, showing an increase of performance by 4 shots. With these results, the data from the replicated experiment suggests that individual performance can be further enhanced with social encouragement and peer presence.
DISCUSSION